Re: [ogb-discuss] RFC: Emancipation Community

from
[John Sonnenschein]

Subject:

Re: [ogb-discuss] RFC: Emancipation Community

From:

"John Sonnenschein"

Date:

Tue, 13 May 2008 13:37:31 -0700

On Tue, May 13, 2008 at 1:31 PM, Nicholas Solter
<Nicholas.Solter@xxxxxxx> wrote:
> Simon,
>
>
>
> Simon Phipps wrote:
> > John S: This is in no way a comment on the work you or the people you
> > name are doing. It is merely picking up on the pressure for reform
> > that was expressed at the Summit.
> >
> >
> > On May 10, 2008, at 18:51, John Plocher wrote:
> >
> >> John Sonnenschein wrote:
> >>> Yes, of course ( Sorry Joerg, I didn't mean to slight you ). John
> >>> Plocher as well ought to be added to the list.
> >> Thank you, but no - the core contributor grants should be
> >> restricted to those who actually contribute - those of us
> >> who simply pontificate should remain simply "interested" or
> >> maybe "contributors".
> >>
> >> I'll let you run with the charter as you see fit since you
> >> are closer to the problem than I am...
> >
> > I think we need to discuss this at an OGB meeting with respect to
> > Article VII of the Constitution. It seems to me that a new CG should
> > start out with /no/ CC grants of its own, and that they should be
> > earned by contribution within the CG.
> >
> > To this end I suggest we explore interpreting §7.4.3 to mean that the
> > initial CCs of any new CG must be existing CCs from elsewhere in the
> > community. With the freedom we have under §7.8, we would then give all
> > of the initial members Contributor grants. We would also need to
> > interpret §8.3 so that the initial outside CCs had CC votes in the new
> > CG until their next renewal. This would have the handy side effect
> > under §7.12 of meaning that any CG that has failed to grow its own CCs
> > by the time the grants of its founders expire would automatically be
> > wound up.
> >
> > Views?
> >
>
> I agree that it's too early, at community group creation time, to name
> CCs. My experience in creating the HA Clusters community group last year
> was that we somewhat arbitrarily chose some people, and then a few
> months later had to go back and reassess, which led to some people being
> "demoted" to contributors.
>
> That said, I don't think that naming existing CCs from other CGs solves
> the core problem, that of predicting who's actually going to do the work
> of a CC in the new group. Furthermore, I think it's quite a stretch to
> interpret the constitution in the way you suggest. If we don't like
> something in the constitution, let's change the constitution rather than
> attempting creative interpretations that are clearly not the original
> intent of the wording.
>
> Thanks,
> Nick
I think this particular group is in the unique position that we are
trying to collect work that's being done all over under a community
banner, so the people I named as CC's have /already/ contributed in a
fundamental way, but generally I agree that most communities are
forced to name at least some CC's arbitrarily.
Or perhaps this community oughtn't be in a unique position. Id est,
communities should spawn out of projects rather than vice versa, core
contributors pulled from the projects that the community is composed
of.
--
PGP Public Key 0x437AF1A1
Available on hkp://pgp.mit.edu
_______________________________________________
ogb-discuss mailing list
ogb-discuss@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
http://mail.opensolaris.org/mailman/listinfo/ogb-discuss